________________
VADAVIDHI AND VADAVIDHANA OF VASUBANDHU
17
6
from which he deduced its identity with the "Vādavidhi" is rendered into Tibetan as 'dam bcah ba yan bsgrub bya bstan paiphyir.' It corresponds to 'pratijñā ca sãdhyānirdēsāt' and is quite different from the definition, Sādhyābhidhānam pratijñā,' which is rendered into Tibetan as 'bsgrub bya bvjod pa ni dam bcah.' The former definition is of the Nyāyasūtra. It has been distinguished from the definition of the "Vādavidhi" by using in the Tibetan rendering, 'bstanpa,' and 'brjod pa.' How can the " Vadanyāya," then, be identified with the "Vādavīdhi" cited by Udyotakara?
The "Vādavidhāna " to which Udyotakara refers and which he regards as a' sastra,' should, therefore, be regarded as a different work. It is not improbable that the definition of Vāda cited by Udyotakara1 and ascribed by Vacaspati to Vasubandhu is a fragment of the "Vādavidhāna." According to Chinese sources, we know that Vasubandhu wrote three works, "Lun Shih" or Vādavidhi, "Lun sin" or "Vadahṛdaya" and "Lun Kuei " or "Vādavidhana" and the writers Shen Tai and Kueichi have ascribed the "Vādavidhi" and the "Vādavidhāna" to Vasubandhu. This ascription to Vasubandhu has further been corroborated by the following statement of S'antarakṣita at the end of his tīkā on the "Vādanyāya "" of Dharmakīrti : ननु चायं वादन्यायमार्गः सकललोक निबन्धनबन्धुना वादविधानादाचार्यवसुबन्धुना महाराजपथीकृतः । कः पुनरसौ अतिसाहसिको यो महानागैः क्षुण्णं पन्थानं रोद्धुमीहते इत्याह । दुर्विदग्धः । सम्यक् विवेकरहिततथा जनोऽयं उद्योतकर प्रीति चन्द्रमा विविक्तप्रभृतिः । The Vada - vidhāna must then, be another work of Vasubandhu.
INV. p. 150.
' NVT. p. 218. तदेवं स्वाभिमतं वादलक्षणं व्याख्याय वासुबन्धवं लक्षणं दूषfuggqzazafa i
See "Vådavidhi" by Tucci IHQ. IV. 630-636. Vadanyāyatikā, p. 142.
3
